Vizcaya v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 2011 HRTO 216

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Vizcaya

Applicant

-and-

Mount Sinai Hospital and Sarah Jacobs

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: January 31, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 216

Indexed as: Vizcaya v. Mount Sinai Hospital

APPEARANCES

David Vizcaya, Applicant ) Self-represented

Mount Sinai Hospital, Respondent ) Jodi Butts, Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination on the basis of colour, disability and creed with respect to goods, services and facilities, contrary to s. 1 of the Code. He also alleges that the respondent engaged in reprisals contrary to s. 8 of the Code.

2In a Case Assessment Direction dated August 5, 2010, the Tribunal directed that the matter be dealt with by way of a summary hearing, pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

3A summary hearing was conducted by telephone on January 25, 2011. I heard submissions from the applicant and from counsel for the respondent.

4I appreciate that this incident was very troubling for Mr. Vizcaya. However, for the reasons that follow, the Application is dismissed. I find that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.

ANALYSIS

5The applicant states that he was removed from an after-party following a gala at the Sheraton Hotel. The gala was a fundraiser for the Mount Sinai Hospital Auxiliary.

6The applicant states that Lisa Colt, a director of the Mount Sinai Hospital Auxiliary, directed a security guard to remove him. He believes that his disability was a factor in Ms. Colt’s decision.

7In the Application, the applicant also raises the prohibited grounds of creed and race. However, in his arguments at the summary hearing, the applicant stated that, while creed and race may have been a factor in the decision to have him removed, he had no evidence or arguments to present in regards to these grounds. He believes that his disability was the principal reason for his removal.

8When asked why he believed his disability was a factor, the applicant argued that Ms. Colt was aware of his disability and that she improperly inferred from this that he would cause problems at the party.

9In my view, the applicant’s arguments and proposed evidence regarding how Ms. Colt became aware of his disability have no reasonable prospect of success.

10The applicant stated that he had met Ginnie Tannenbaum, a Mount Sinai Auxiliary volunteer, at a different and earlier event. He states that, at that time, he disclosed the nature of his disability to Ms. Tannenbaum. He believes that she subsequently transmitted this information to Ms. Colt.

11The applicant states that, although hundreds of people were present at the gala, he believes he observed Ms. Tannenbaum speaking with Ms. Colt. He did not overhear the conversation, but argued that Ms. Tannenbaum must have advised Ms. Colt of his disability, otherwise there could have been no reason for his removal.

12The respondent denies the allegations of discrimination and states that the applicant’s disability was not a factor in the decision to have him removed. The respondent stated that the applicant did not appear on its guest list for the after-party, which it said was by invitation only. The respondent states that the applicant was asked to leave the party because he did not appear on the guest list. The respondent argued that the applicant has not established any reasonable basis to infer that Ms. Colt was aware of his disability or that it was a factor in her decision to have him removed from the party.

13The applicant stated that he held a ticket that allowed him to attend both the gala and the after-party. Although his name may not have appeared on a guest list, he claims that nothing on the ticket indicates that it cannot be transferred.

14While I appreciate that the experience of being removed from a party was a difficult and embarrassing one for the applicant, I cannot conclude that there is any reasonable prospect of establishing a connection between the removal and a prohibited ground or a reprisal within the meaning of the Code.

15The applicant appears to make general allegations of unfair and inappropriate treatment by the respondent. However, in order to find a breach of the Code, the applicant must establish that such unfair and inappropriate treatment is due, at least in part, to a prohibited ground of discrimination. Similarly, in order to establish that there has been a reprisal within the meaning of section 8 of the Code, the applicant must establish that, among other things, he was seeking to claim or enforce his or another’s rights under the Code and that he suffered reprisal or threat of reprisal as a result. There were no allegations of this nature.

16While the applicant has clearly stated that he feels mistreated by the respondent, I am not satisfied that that there is any reasonable prospect of connecting the respondent’s alleged behaviour to a prohibited ground or a reprisal under the Code. The Application is dismissed.